If Girls Are Game for Boys’ Teams, They Deserve a Shot

There once was a girl who loved to play hopscotch. Every day, she’d hop and she’d scotch until she became the best girl hopscotcher around. Soon, there wasn’t a girl who would challenge her.

She decided to try her hopscotching skills against boys, but the adults who regulated hopscotching said no.

“Girls have their own hopscotching division,” they said. “There’s no need for you to hop with the boys. Go home and knit a sweater and you’ll get over it.”

The girl was puzzled. She had been taught that, if she set her mind to it, she could do anything she wanted to do.

All she wanted was the opportunity to try to hopscotch against boys. She thought boys might provide better competition, and by playing against them, she could improve her skills. That inspired her.

“Wait a minute,” she said. “Why can’t I compete with the boys?”

“Because that’s the way it is,” they said. “If you want to be with the team, try cheerleading.”

“Oh well,” she shrugged, and went back to the girls’ division where she soon became bored and quit.

Should girls have the opportunity to try out for boys’ teams--and play on boys’ teams--if deemed capable?

Of course, for the same reason that women have the right to become police chiefs, airline pilots, CEOs and major league baseball umpires.

Ability--not gender--should determine how far one gets in life, be it in work, education or athletics.

In high school sports, a girl who proves herself capable of playing for a boys’ team should be allowed to do so.

The California Interscholastic Federation allows girls to play on boys’ teams, but only when there isn’t a girls’ team offered in that sport, such as water polo.

The state Department of Education has proposed a regulation that would allow girls to play on boys’ teams if they prove themselves capable.

Opponents of this proposal--and there are many--have a long list of reasons why girls should be satisfied with the status quo:

* Allowing girls to play on boys ‘ teams will hurt girls’ athletics as a whole.

Opponents believe that if girls were allowed on boys’ teams, all the top female athletes would rush to join the boys, leaving girls’ sports in ruins.

First, let’s be realistic. AThere are probably not vast numbers of girls capable of competing on the boys’ level. That’s not to say the boys’ teams are better, necessarily, but they are undoubtedly packed with players stronger and quicker than most girls.

And who is to say that top female athletes will even want to play on boys’ teams? Many will be happy to stay where they are.

But will girls’ sports suffer?

Doubtful. Sure, the loss of a Cheryl Miller-type player will hurt a girls’ basketball team for a season or two. But the underlying response will be an overall improvement in girls’ sports.

Just as weaker teams must find ways to improve, girls’ sports will also find ways to get better and attract more girls.

Athletic directors and coaches of girls’ teams, under the threat of losing their top players, will work that much harder to provide what is needed--prestige, top competition, excellent coaching.

* It is better for top female athletes to stay on girls’ teams because they serve as role models for younger players.

Sure, and top women secretaries should remain secretaries and not strive to be CEOs.

A girl who has the ability and drive to compete against the boys is a role model for other girls. And other boys. Respect goes to those who strive to be their best, no matter the situation.

* If girls want better competition, they can find it by playing on out-of-season club competition.

Well, how nice. We won’t let girls play on boys’ high school teams but we will let them--encourage them even--to pay money and spend extra time playing for a club team.

* In sports such as soccer and basketball, girls might get hurt playing against boys.

This will undoubtedly be one of the major arguments. Boys, not wanting to be shown up, might play rough. But girls who are strong enough to compete against boys will take this into consideration. Besides, girls can hurt playing against girls.

* Girls’ sports have come so far, why jeopardize what we already have?

Yes, they’ve come a long way, baby.

Girls no longer compete in the cave-woman era of Girls’ Athletic Assn. They no longer wear bloomers. They no longer have “play days” instead of full-fledged athletic contests. They no longer are ignored by the media.

Is that to say they should be satisfied?

No.

Being allowed to play on boys’ teams would be the next--and the most logical--step toward the overall aim, equality.

TWO SETS OF STANDARDS

The potential conflict of standards between the state Board of Education and the CIF concerning girls’ participation in interscholastic sports:

Rule from regulations being considered by the state Board of Education:

“A female student shall be permitted to try out for and participate on an all-male team if she meets the objective, competitive skill requirements to participate, even though a female team exists in the same sport.”

From Article 2 of the CIF bylaws:

200 (a) STUDENT TEAM--Whenever the school provides only a team or teams for boys in a particular sport, girls are permitted to qualify for the student team(s).

(b) BOYS’ TEAM--Whenever the school provides a team or teams for boys and a team or teams for girls in the same sport, girls shall not be permitted to qualify for the boys’ team(s) in that sport, nor shall boys be permitted to qualify the girls’ team(s) in that sport.

(c) GIRLS’ TEAM--Whenever the school provides only a team or teams for girls in a particular sport, boys shall not be permitted to qualify for the girls’ team in that sport unless opportunities in the total sports program for boys in the school has been limited in comparison to the total sports program for girls in that school. Permission for boys to qualify for a girls’ team must be secured through petition by the school principal to the State CIF Federated Council.